Politico Writes Dumb Thing About Elizabeth Warren. Shall We Read It, Together?
So Politico has a bright shiny thing about how our dear Old Handsome Joe Biden wanted Elizabeth Warren to be his vice president, should he have run. Everyone wants Elizabeth Warren to be their vice president. Donald Trump is trying to figure out RIGHT NOW how he can take back all the times he made hilarious jokesabout her fake Indian (not fake Indian) heritage, so he can ask her to pretty please be his vice president too! But that is not what this post is about. This post, instead, is about one very stupid paragraph in that Politico piece, and making a federal case out of it, because hey, it is Friday.
Blah blah blah, Joe Biden loves Elizabeth Warren, everybody loves Elizabeth Warren, she is the kind of Female Old Handsome Joe (but less centrist-y) that anyone would want helping them make decisions about shit. She is great, Hillary and Joe have banking ties and need someone on the left, ET CETERA, and ...
Warren — to the delight of Clinton’s staff — has recently trained her fire on Donald Trump, a move that many Clintonites interpret as evidence that the darling of the Democrats’ anti-establishment wingmight be willing to accept Clinton,despite the front-runner’s deep and lucrative connections to the New York financial services sector.
(Our bold.)
Really? MIGHT she? MIGHT Elizabeth Warren be willing to accept Clinton? The woman Warren urged to run for president? The bad old bank-lover whose opponent Warren had the opportunity to endorse and yet somehow never managed to find the time? That is some hypothetical, whether or not Warren "might" accept her instead of telling her to fuck right off with some sort of unpleasant off-fucking implement!
Unless Politico is saying she "might" accept Clinton's offer to be her running mate, which, yeah, is actually much less clear.
We, for one, are unwilling to give Politico the benefit of the doubt, because whatever they suck.
[ Politico ]
Honestly? It wouldn't shock me to hear that he's actually in hock up to his eyeballs, and all that "wealth" was really just some very fancy footwork.
Okay. But the tradeoff is that if we do as you suggest, we simply lose any ability to refer to anyone who is further left than Clinton is, and we encourage those many, many people who consider anyone who IS further left than Clinton is to be crazy or otherwise unworthy of even talking to. Which is EXACTLY how politics has moved so far to the right in this country in the last 30 years in the first place.
If every time politics moves to the right, we move 'the left' along with it, then WE LOSE.